Slashdot Mirror
Should Domain-Name Registrations Require A Verifiable Real Name? (blogspot.com)
lpress writes:
The Internet was a major source of news -- fake and real -- during the election campaign. The operators of fake sites, whether motivated by politics or greed, are often anonymous. We avoid voter fraud by requiring verification of ones name, age and address. A verifiable real-names domain registration policy would discourage information fraud.
"I understand the wish to protect the privacy of a person or organization registering a domain name," argues the linked-to blog post, "but there is also a public interest." ICANN already requested comments on this back in 2015, but I'm curious what Slashdot's readers think. Should domain name registrations require a verifiable real name?
"I understand the wish to protect the privacy of a person or organization registering a domain name," argues the linked-to blog post, "but there is also a public interest." ICANN already requested comments on this back in 2015, but I'm curious what Slashdot's readers think. Should domain name registrations require a verifiable real name?
the US Supreme Court has already ruled that anonymity is a necessary requirement to protect free speech. And it's easy to see why.
case closed.
The problem with real-name policies is their speech-chilling effect. Better that 1000 bogus sights hide under anonymity than one legitimate individual feels too intimidated to share his views. And before you get all "Don't you think the government can figure out who you are anyway?", I'm not referring to intimidation and reprisal from three-letter agencies. I'm talking about the guy with views on local building ordinances that may not agree with his next door neighbor but doesn't want that neighbor leaving flaming bags of poo on his doorstep if he voices them.
There's a hell of a lot more 'public interest' in knowing who is behind the SuperPACs that spend orders of magnitudes more money to influence elections, but it's already been ruled that the right to participate anonymously in the political process is still more important.
After those damnable SuperPAC donors shed their anonymity then we can talk about whether to give up anonymity for Internet publishers.
I own a few parody and """troll""" websites, so I'm biased here.
But I don't think the real name or information of a URL owner should be available to the public. To law enforcement, sure, assuming their reasons for wanting such information are valid and come with a warrant.
I'd rather not have my personal email/name/place of work be flooded with "offended" children that can't understand sarcasm and/or satire demanding that I be fired, thanks.
Damn, I already used all my mod points.
EFF says it better than I could.
It sounds like a good idea to require a real name, but simply for free speech doing so could have chilling effects and work to silence people.
Most of us are posting somewhat anonymously here even though I don't believe it's an impenetrable mask. We build up our own karma (or lose it) and are identifiable by pseudonym so others can judge our credibility based on past posts.
Complete anonymity can lead to complete lack of credibility which is why so few people here pay any attention to Anonymous Cowards at all.
I hope no one takes this as a challenge, but for some random web surfer I would hope it would not trivial to take off my mask. I'm still careful about what I say, but it's unlikely anyone will google my real name and be able to find everything I've posted here or on other sites and that makes me feel free enough to post at all.
If I were of the wrong political persuasion in a country like Turkey right now I would either be afraid to post at all or I would take greater steps to hide my identity for obvious reasons and yet I believe free speech is a basic human right.
That requires a metric ton of qualifications. (What does still bought it mean? What article? Actors in an article?)
I mean, I'd think the answer would just be "yes". If you want to own property, you need to put it in your name. Journalists pay the price of being more transparent than pretty much anyone else out there. I don't understand the opposition to it. The easier it is to not be transparent, the easier it is for organizations of people, be it companies or otherwise, with the money to do so.
"Old man yells at systemd"
At this point, the civilized world doesn't need to worry about the government coming at them - they need to worry about the multinationals coming at their government. Trade agreements are good in theory. This is the problem. People look at trade agreements between countries. They are more like agreements that companies want to make, with no particular interest in being fair. Citizens tend to have no particular interest in being fair either, favoring what is best locally. Governments *should* in theory be working towards a general contract as we do locally. Compromises that are beneficial. But people vote for governments or vote for weakening the power governments have over the single minded goal of industry.
"Old man yells at systemd"
For the past few years, all we've heard from Google, Facebook, et al., is how deanonymization is going to end trolling and make people Take The Internet Seriously. It hasn't worked. In fact, it has consistently failed spectacularly, and made every problem worse. Doxxing is easier than ever, and is a virtually standard part of arguing on the Internet. Privacy has gone to shit, and the demand for phenomenally unworkable "Right To Be Forgotten" laws has increased, without any concern for the fact that we wouldn't need to forget so many things if people were able to simply remain anonymous.
So no, we should not require real names for domains, or for Youtube accounts, or email, or whatever inane thing it's going to be next. I'm very skeptical that we should have a public WHOIS registry at all, because for many years it has been reduced to a useless racket for registrars to sell "domain privacy" services.
A little more than a week ago,a guy opposed by all the Wall Street bankers managed to win the White House spending only a fraction of the money his opponent spent. Hillary ran over a hundred million dollars of TV ads that were un-answered by Trump, she had a number of super-PACs dumping all the dirt they could on Trump, including that "grab 'em by the pussy" tape, the stolen tax documents, endless recordings of Trump saying the worst things he has ever said... she dumped her entire war chest on him which was supposed to have been twice the size of Obama's (which was the first to ever spend $1Billion+).
Citizens United is just a left-wing mantra, a progressive talking point. The "money buys the White House" claim is now a PROVEN false meme.
It turns out that voters still matter more than the money of wealthy special interests.